Case Background
Anthony Harris initiated a legal battle against his former employer, RL Liquidators, LLC, in May 2023. He represented himself and a group of current and former hourly workers who claimed the company had systematically ignored California’s labor laws. Over time, the case expanded to include Elijah Mayorga and Limmie Propps as additional lead Plaintiffs. The employees worked for the Sacramento-based liquidation company during a period that stretched from June 2021 through February 2024.
Cause
The lawsuit centered on allegations that RL Liquidators maintained a company-wide culture of non-compliance regarding employee pay and benefits. Harris argued that the company failed to pay the legal minimum wage and neglected to compensate workers for overtime hours. Furthermore, the workers alleged they were frequently denied their legally required 30-minute meal periods and 10-minute rest breaks. The complaint also charged the company with failing to reimburse employees for business-related expenses and providing inaccurate or incomplete wage statements that made it difficult for staff to track their actual earnings.
Injury
The primary harm suffered by the workers was financial. By failing to pay all earned wages, including overtime and premiums for missed breaks, the company deprived its staff of their rightful income. Additionally, the lack of accurate record-keeping meant employees could not verify if they had been paid correctly for the work they performed.
Damages Sought
Harris brought this case under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which allowed him to seek civil penalties on behalf of the State of California and all affected employees. He requested various penalties ranging from $50 to $250 per pay period for each violation committed against every employee in the group. The lawsuit also sought the recovery of unpaid wages, interest, and the reimbursement of attorney fees and legal costs incurred during the litigation.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The legal process moved through the Sacramento County Superior Court, where both sides presented sharply different versions of the company’s employment practices.
Legal Representation
Plaintiffs: Anthony Harris | Elijah Mayorga | Limmie Propps.
Counsel for Plaintiffs: Douglas Han | Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh | William Wilkinson
Defendant: RL Liquidators, LLC.
Counsel for Defendant: Derek J. Haynes | Dylan T. de Wit
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
The Plaintiffs’ attorneys argued that the violations were not isolated incidents but were part of a systemic failure to follow state labor standards. They contended that the company had acted with "deliberate indifference" toward the rights of its workforce.
Claims
The core of the legal challenge involved several distinct violations of the California Labor Code:
Unpaid Wages: The company allegedly failed to pay minimum and overtime wages for all hours worked.
Missed Breaks: Management reportedly failed to provide mandated meal and rest periods or pay the required "premium" wage when those breaks were missed.
Administrative Failures: The Plaintiffs claimed the company did not provide accurate pay stubs and failed to pay final wages on time when employees left the company.
Expense Reimbursement: Workers allegedly had to pay for business-related expenses out of their own pockets without getting reimbursed.
Defense
RL Liquidators fought the allegations from the start. In its formal response, the company issued a general denial of every claim made by the workers. They argued that they had not violated any laws and that the employees were not entitled to any financial recovery. The company maintained that its policies were legal and that the Plaintiffs had failed to state a valid cause of action for the penalties they were seeking.
Settlement
The case did not reach a jury trial. Instead, after extensive litigation and negotiations, the parties agreed to a $500,000 global settlement to resolve all claims. While RL Liquidators agreed to the payout, the company did not admit to any wrongdoing or liability, stating that the settlement was a way to resolve a "significantly disputed" legal matter.
The Court set a final compliance hearing for May 2025 to ensure all payments reach the workers. Any uncashed checks will eventually be sent to the State Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com
